Talk:Why Don't You?

BBC Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject BBC, an attempt to better organise information in articles related to the BBC. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join us as a member. You can also visit the BBC Portal.BBCWikipedia:WikiProject BBCTemplate:WikiProject BBCBBC articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tasks for WikiProject BBC:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Improve BBC, BBC News (TV channel) and BBC News to Good Article status following previous reviews, create BBC Computer Literacy Project (in light of forthcoming 30th anniversary)
Cleanup : Chucklevision - references and general clean-up, Pebble Mill Studios - over-detailed and long, BBC World Service Television - unreferenced and confusing
Copyedit : BBC News, Broadcasting House
Expand : Top 20 start-class BBC articles with most importance: BBC Japan, BBC World Service Television, BBC Lifestyle, BBC Two Northern Ireland
NPOV : Criticism of the BBC (See comments)
Stubs : Stub-Class BBC articles
Other : *Restructure the category
- Add infoboxes to the BBC articles without infoboxes
- Add free-use images to biographical articles where possible
- Add references to Goa Mix (see assessment) and Coat of arms of the BBC
- Return Dad's Army to a Good article. (See comments)
- Reassess BBC following improvements to article.

Television: British

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the British television task force.

WDYJSOYTSAGADSLBI

Was it ever really referred to as this? Seems a bit extravagant.88.98.30.125 (talk) 16:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC) Syxx 00:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I removed it. 212.159.16.171 14:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I can only ever remember it being refered to as 'Why Don't You?88.98.30.125 (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The show was referred to by the initials during the first couple of series, but this fell into disuse as I don't think it was popular or catchy. Foor the same reason, the full name of the show was less promoted, though not dropped.

One feature in an early series taught people how to pronounce WDYJSOYTSAGADSLBI. "wudge-ee-soyts-a-gads-lib-eye" to a close approximation. Ringbark (talk) 19:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally listed in the Radio Times as "Wdyjsoytsagadslbi?" or "Why don't you just switch off your television set and go and do something less boring instead?" for the first few series. 88.107.184.224 (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not really viewer suggestions

On a recent Top 100 Kids' TV Shows thing on Channel 4, someone linked to the program pointed out that, as most of the suggestions sent in were the same as each other, the show's ?producers/writers actually had to come up with most of the ideas themselves. This mainly included raiding ideas from children's activity books from a local bookshop. Can anyone with access to the program please give me some more detail / more-accurate info, so I can add this to the article ? ThisIsAce 07:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't "point it out" as it's not obviously true. They claimed it. If anyone has access to a copy of the channel four show they could quote and cite the person as a source. Mr. Jones (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing this as well. Just now, I have seen a (re-edited, it seems) repeat of the programme on E4, and there was no commentary at all for Why Don't You?. This is why I have searched in Wikipedia about this.Jason404 (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kieron Toner

So, there have been repeated additions of Toner to the list of presenters. I'm assuming by the same user, initially as an IP. This has been reverted a number of times by others. Edit summaries, but no discussion per se, have suggested notability in other fields. I'm entirely happy that Toner may be notable. I don't believe, however, that citing papers he has been a named author on show that notability as such. They also don't show that he was a presenter on the program at all - I could just as easily cite newspaper articles showing that David Beckham played a football match and claim he was a presenter (too young) or papers published by Albert Einstein to show that he presented the programme (too old). Perhaps a discussion might be a good start? Can we show Toner's general notability first perhaps and then try to establish if anywhere there is any form of reference to him having been a presenter? All comments and inclusions are valuable. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying to start this discussion and for trying to persuade the user who keeps on adding Toner to participate. That's not me, but I'll chip in anyway, if only to stop it getting too lonely.

I have no idea who Toner is beyond his Google search results but the red link is red and remains red. Our normal policy on lists of notable people is that the article comes first not the list entry. If he is notable somebody should make at least a stub of an article about him but, based on what I see in Google, I think that such an article would be deleted. An academic with a few minor books and articles is not likely to be considered notable per Wikipedia:Notability (academics).

I propose that any further attempts to add Toner continue to be reverted unless/until a plausibly valid article for him is created and does not get deleted at the first hurdle. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]